I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.

I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.

And the problem is that the laymen use the incorrect definition when trying to talk about scientific anything.

It's a bit more than that since there is some of the layman use getting into the scientific community. It can also be a bit difficult to correct too because some people, when told how things are done and it's different than what they do, blow it off like they're the ones who make the rules. It's rare, but it happens.

So the short answer to the OP is: If there's some communication confusion make sure to define the words you're using and see if that's different from how the other person defines the words.

"there are no black swans" this is considered a fact because no one ever found a black swan rigth?

A scientist would most likely phrase it something like "No black specimens have been documented in X ". X being whatever swan species is being studied.

Now did you have an actual point or just trying to be contrary?

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 11:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by girgamer

I thought that a proven hypothesis is a theory and the fact was what was observed to have happened. To use your example, the fact is that they function as individuals, the hypothesis is that to do this they need to communicate and the theory is that they use chemicals to do it.

So basically a fact is something that can't be disproved and a theory still, possibly can. Like in my original statement: Fact: the apple fell.

A single supported hypothesis, one that has not been proven false, doesn't a theory make. It takes a lot more evidence than that. And we don't prove hypotheses. You try to disprove the null hypothesis. It may seem like semantics or splitting hairs but it's important to approach all science in this manner so as to leave everything open to be rejected or proven false. Approaching phenomena this way allows us to continually improve our knowledge and understanding instead of stating absolutes.

Law: A description of consistent phenomena that does not explain the source of the phenomenon.

---------- Post added 2012-11-21 at 01:12 AM ----------

Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK

And the problem is that the laymen use the incorrect definition when trying to talk about scientific anything.

How to Demonstrate a Lack of Understanding of the Scientific Method in A Few Easy Steps:

1. Insist that the simplest explanation is not usually the best.
2. State that because there is a correlation, the relationship MUST be causitive.
3. Say 'it's just a theory' when describing a Theory such as Evolution or Relativity.
4. Ask why it's not called the "Law of Evolution".
5. Dismiss peer consensus as not mattering.
6. Insist that the findings of case studies can be applied to the general population.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.